The psychosocial needs of adolescent and young adult kidney transplant recipients, and associated interventions: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Renal transplantation is considered the gold standard treatment for end-stage kidney disease. Adolescent and young adult kidney transplant recipients have the highest rate of graft loss amongst transplanted patients. It is largely accepted this is due to psychosocial and behavioural difficulties, which impact adherence to prescribed therapies. This phenomenon is not isolated to a particular healthcare system having been observed in multiple countries across different continents. It is a global issue of concern. We sought to review the psychosocial needs of these patients, and the interventions designed to meet these needs. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted based on Arksey and O'Malley's six-stage framework. Eligibility criteria included primary studies of any type that investigated the psychosocial needs of adolescent and/or young adult renal transplant recipients or studies which examined interventions designed to address these needs. Search strategies were developed and conducted on PsycINFO, PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were critically reviewed using a descriptive-analytical narrative method. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies met our inclusion criteria, 30 of which related to psychosocial needs, and the remainder examined psychosocial interventions. Four main themes were derived from our analysis of psychosocial needs literature, as follows: the need for (1) emotional support, (2) acceptance, (3) direction, (4) equality in healthcare. 2 main themes emerged from analysis of psychosocial intervention literature, namely: psychosocial (1) capability, (2) assessment. Despite the evidence that graft health is strongly associated with psychosocial wellbeing, findings revealed a significant lack of literature investigating how best to meet psychosocial needs. Trends were observed amongst intervention studies, namely interventions of novel and non-evidenced based design, with the aim of improving medication adherence through organisational strategies and education. However, literature regarding psychosocial needs showed non-adherence to therapies was not simply a result of disorganisation or lack of understanding, but rather, was founded on a recipient's idiosyncratic relationship with their prescribed therapies e.g., psychological, social or financial reasons for non-adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should be directed at investigating the efficacy of evidence-based interventions that empower the individual patient to overcome their specific barrier to an optimal relationship with their therapies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".